(June 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Right, and you are an expert on when we should think we understand the bible and when we should take it for what it is.

The only time you should take a passage at face value is when the orginal text directly translates into a 'face value' reading of the text.

(June 6, 2012 at 10:01 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

Quote:Absolutely. Or to put it another way - "midichlorians".

I maintain these prequels are non-canonical.

Think of them as lost books of the gospel.

I prefer to think of them as something that only happened in Darth Vader's mind. He woke up, said "wow what a horrible dream", then went to work chasing after the Death Star plans for the opening of A New Hope.

(June 6, 2012 at 10:52 pm)Chuck Wrote: Think of them as lost books of the gospel.

Blasphemer! One must reject the works of the prequels to be True Fan ™ .

---

(June 6, 2012 at 10:55 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I prefer to think of them as something that only happened in Darth Vader's mind. He woke up, said "wow what a horrible dream", then went to work chasing after the Death Star plans for the opening of A New Hope.

I prefer to think of the prequels as something that only happened in my bad dreams. Then I woke up and pretended they never happened. There are only three Star Wars movies (IV, V and VI). Too bad Lucas never got around to the first three, huh?

there are rumors of a 7,8, and 9

(June 6, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Right, and you are an expert on when we should think we understand the bible and when we should take it for what it is.

The only time you should take a passage at face value is when the orginal text directly translates into a 'face value' reading of the text.

How do you determine which passage merits a "face value" reading? Who are you, in absence of instruction from the bible's authors, to say that parts are metaphorical?

(June 7, 2012 at 9:59 am)Tobie Wrote: How do you determine which passage merits a "face value" reading? Who are you, in absence of instruction from the bible's authors, to say that parts are metaphorical?

So you cannot figure out if your math text books are poetry or not?

(June 7, 2012 at 10:17 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 7, 2012 at 9:59 am)Tobie Wrote: How do you determine which passage merits a "face value" reading? Who are you, in absence of instruction from the bible's authors, to say that parts are metaphorical?

So you cannot figure out if your math text books are poetry or not?

Did you actually just post that?

(June 7, 2012 at 10:17 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 7, 2012 at 9:59 am)Tobie Wrote: How do you determine which passage merits a "face value" reading? Who are you, in absence of instruction from the bible's authors, to say that parts are metaphorical?

So you cannot figure out if your math text books are poetry or not?

Maths books are not fiction, and are up to date, so yes I can. There's nothing beyond the "this bit sounds stupid, too horrible or too out of date to be true" that makes you decide, but it may have been intended as factual when it was written. Maths textbooks do not have the same content, intent or audience as the bible.

(June 7, 2012 at 10:25 am)Tobie Wrote: Maths books are not fiction, and are up to date, so yes I can.

Of course you can. I used an absurd example to illustrate a point. All texts require you to use a greater or lesser degree of judgement about its nature, the author's, intent, and the historical and social contexts within which they were written. Math vs. poetry is east. Ancient documents much less so. Even then, some meanings are relatively clear, others more speculative. Discussion and debate amongst interpretors is not evidence that the texts lack value or applicability. Few things of value are easily attained.